Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Montpelier council approves Country Club Road redesign, to seek disaster-recovery grant
Summary
The City Council approved a plan to regrade Country Club Road to a 12% slope, raise a section of U.S. Route 2, replace utilities and pursue disaster-recovery funding; supporters framed it as resilience and infrastructure investment, while some residents urged a pause for a master plan and preferred a multiuse path alternative.
The Montpelier City Council voted to approve the recommended Country Club Road infrastructure alternative and to pursue disaster-recovery and other grants to pay for the work. The approved plan calls for lowering the mid‑section of Country Club Road to a consistent 12% grade, elevating a portion of U.S. Route 2 at the Country Club intersection, centering a new streetscape in the right‑of‑way and replacing water and sewer lines for the corridor.
Councilors and staff say the project aims to fix a steep, inconsistent grade and to replace aging utilities in a single coordinated project. "We're proposing to reconstruct the road at 12% grade, center the streetscape within the right of way, to raise Route 2 to minimize the grade break at the rail crossing," said Kurt Monica, director of public works.
Why it matters: councilors and public‑works staff framed the proposal as an integrated infrastructure project that could be paid largely by federal disaster‑recovery funds and other grants. City planning director Mike Miller told the council the project is one the state encouraged the city to continue pursuing for a 100% disaster‑recovery grant application, which would be submitted this winter.
Details and cost: The council packet and staff presentation estimated the total project at about $7.2 million, including engineering to 90% for streetscape elements and new utilities along the route and to the river crossing. The streetscape cross‑section shown to the council includes two 10‑foot travel lanes, shoulders, a five‑foot sidewalk and a six‑foot uphill bike lane on parts of the corridor. Consultant Evan Dietrich of BHB described an estimated 2½ to 3 foot raise of Route 2 through the intersection area and said right‑of‑way acquisition impacts look limited; the staff estimate includes $30,000 placeholder for potential right‑of‑way work.
Debate and alternatives: Several speakers urged caution. Resident Steve Whitaker and other commenters recommended pausing the road reconstruction until the city finishes a master plan and consults state and regional partners; they argued a 12% road rebuild is costly and may face regulatory resistance. Whitaker urged a multiuse path designed to support emergency vehicles and to advance housing and resiliency goals as a more feasible near‑term option. Council members asked about grant strategy: staff said the city will also seek Catalyst grant funding and could combine awards if successful. Kurt Monica said utility design is already at 60% and that additional streetscape design would be tied to grant funding.
Next steps and funding: City staff will prepare the disaster‑recovery and other grant applications; consultants and staff will complete engineering outreach and refine costs. Council members discussed that if grant funding is not secured, the council would need to revisit the scope and the city’s budget commitment; staff noted options such as phasing, developer participation, or other grant programs. The council approved the recommendation and staff will move forward with grant applications and design work.
Context and caveats: Staff noted the proposed plan requires additional negotiations for temporary slopes or easements in a few places where grading extends outside existing right‑of‑way. The design team said drainage would continue to discharge toward the river and that added stormwater treatment would be included. If grants are not awarded the city would reassess the timetable and funding strategy.
Funding and timeline: The city expects to apply for the disaster‑recovery grant in December and to hear back in early 2026; engineering and permitting would follow depending on award and funding mix. "Because that's a 100% grant, what's important is we just need to know what we're applying for," Mike Miller said.
Ending note: Councilors and members of the public expressed a mix of support for infrastructure investment and concern about sequencing with longer‑range planning; staff will continue public outreach as the grant applications and design proceed.
